Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

You see Shrike, a Bigfooter could still say that "we can't get money to study Bigfoot for anywhere other than the PNW and Rockies". Look at the sighting map. Meldrum needs to set up funded projects on the other side of the country.

. . . Or use my explanation to point out that mere chicken feed is going to bigfoot research.

I like to counter with the big and well-funded study of black bears in the Oklahoma Ouachitas - bigfoot central in that part of the world - that analyzed DNA from hairs on barbed wire hair catchers to describe the population expanding into Oklahoma from Arkansas. How that study could've missed bigfoot is beyond me.

Looking at that sighting map Parcher posted, is there any other native terrestrial mammal that is as widespread as Bigfoot would be, if it existed in those locations?

I'm thinking maybe Raccoon, Opossum...

Not the Black Bear, or Whitetail deer for sure.

Might we have to say that Bigfoot is the most widespread wild mammal in North America?

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

It won't work if you ask about single species. The Mangani map puts Bigfoot practically everywhere. For non-human species, I'm betting on the coyote as most widespread across the entirety of North America..

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Shrike,
Looking at that sighting map Parcher posted, is there any other native terrestrial mammal that is as widespread as Bigfoot would be, if it existed in those locations?

It's actually more difficult to say than it appears at first. There is a fairly healthy list of native North American mammals that occur (or occurred before we hunted them out of certain regions) across the continent. A few of these (e.g., beaver and river otter) really do have a broad scale range that includes the Southeast U.S. all the way up and across the boreal forests of Canada into Alaska. So it would be tough to say that bigfoot has the widest range of any NA mammal.

Then there are those species that really are widely distributed but might be absent from one region of the bigfoot range map. For example, raccoons don't range as far north as bigfoots allegedly do, but raccoons are also common through the Great Plains where bigfoot records are scanty. So you run into some apples and oranges things.

But, the more damning thing is to consider the reputed range of bigfoot creatures globally. Is there any other terrestrial mammal that approximates such a range without technology (i.e. boats) to disperse and colonize new areas? How can there be bigfoots in NA, SA, Eurasia, Australia, and Africa? If we're talking ONE species, there is nothing else like this. If we consider multiple species - "families" - then there might be a couple of examples. But even that would take some digging. Canids (dogs) would work, but they are not native to Australia. Ditto cats. Cervids (deer) are widespread, but absent from Africa and Australia. . .

. . . Or use my explanation to point out that mere chicken feed is going to bigfoot research.

I like to counter with the big and well-funded study of black bears in the Oklahoma Ouachitas - bigfoot central in that part of the world - that analyzed DNA from hairs on barbed wire hair catchers to describe the population expanding into Oklahoma from Arkansas. How that study could've missed bigfoot is beyond me.

That's easy. These people are too focused on bear to see bigfoot. Only those who are actually searching for evidence of bigfoot can fabrica...er....FIND it.

Near the end he's shown making impressions with a large fake foot in some raked sand. The result appears like an obvious "stamping". But his fake foot is a flat featureless cut-out. Other hoaxers such as Wallace spent time and effort carving their fake feet to have contoured features.

He also mentions that the results from a flat fake foot (as he has used) "wouldn't fool anyone". Meldrum doesn't understand the willingness of some Bigfooters to accept virtually anything that is promoted. Besides that, it's easy to predict that folks would naturally choose to cast the "best" tracks in any given trackway. Tracks that look "fakey" or incomplete would not have plaster poured into them.

The believer assists the hoaxer by only casting and then presenting the most realistic of all the tracks created by fake feet in a hoaxed Bigfoot trackway.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

The believer assists the hoaxer by only casting and then presenting the most realistic of all the tracks created by fake feet in a hoaxed Bigfoot trackway.

Beautiful commentary. They are going to cast 4 tracks or whatever, and the most Bigfoot looking one is going to be broadcast. They aren't going to show anyone the cast that has the plywood imprint in the arch. Especially if it will undermine the 'good' cast's authenticity amongst the Bigfooters.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Meldrum is also neglecting that hoaxers can be spectacularly creative individuals. This is is argument from ignorance and incredulity. What self-respecting BF hoaxer would use a flat, featureless cut-out foot? Wallace was using better-crafted stamps 50-odd years ago.

__________________"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

These locals 'investigators' are finding all these human sized, human-like, barefoot prints, and they bring Meldrum in to analyze them, and he says, that they could be juvenile sasquatch whose feet haven't morphed into the adult sasquatch foot-characteristics.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

These locals 'investigators' are finding all these human sized, human-like, barefoot prints, and they bring Meldrum in to analyze them, and he says, that they could be juvenile sasquatch whose feet haven't morphed into the adult sasquatch foot-characteristics.

I saw that also. The Bigfoot creduloid had catalogued and collected casts of 6", 8" and 11" footprints. He said the ones couldn't possibly have been human because they were barefoot and it was cool outside. Does Jeff Meldrun never get embarrassed by any of these peoples' actions?

He said the ones couldn't possibly have been human because they were barefoot and it was cool outside.

Good lord. A couple of years ago a friend sent me photos of some tracks they had found in Georgia. It was the classic off the beaten path, middle of January, "nobody would walk barefoot through that stuff in the cold" prints. We all agreed however that they were 100% human.

Hippies and hillbillies. The bane of Bigfootery apparently.

__________________"But why doesn't Bigfoot get habituated? Everything can be habituated. Give me a crate of Oreos and I could habituate you."-kitakaze

If anyone gets a chance, I'd be interested in Meldrum's opinion on the falsifiability of Bigfoot in relation to his position. He obviously believes that Bigfoot does exist. But how would he ever know/learn that Bigfoot does not exist? Could there ever possibly be something or a combination of somethings which would cause Meldrum to no longer believe? What might such a thing(s) be?

Is it too late for that now? Is he forever locked into belief even if Bigfoot really doesn't exist? I'm curious what he would say about this topic.

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Yes, he had an encounter of sorts but never saw the subject. He heard it outside of his tent and then found what he thought were big footprints. This was long ago, maybe in his teens or twenties?

Is it that anyone with such an experience can never ever switch to non-belief? Has anyone ever first said "I saw a Bigfoot" or "I was in the presence of a Bigfoot" and then later (for whatever reasons) came to say "I don't think that Bigfoot exists" or "Bigfoot doesn't exist"?

__________________Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Sadly, it was when he was an adult, postgraduate, in his 30's or 40's, in the '90s some time. He went out with "cryptozoologist" Richard Greenwell on a camping trip with Greenwell's son. Rocks were thrown, "footsteps" were heard...the usual boogerman stuff. Of course, this is all "compelling" apparently...well...to him at least...

Can any of you even try to debunk the gaussian curve based of footprints?

Gee, you know, I think I can.
can you tell me sources of the data? how many toes each foot had? how many had the split ball? how many had narrow heels? how many others had differences? all collected by one person? or how many were "collected" by Freeman? Marx? Patterson? Titmus? on Bluff Creek? Blue Mountain? How many closely resemble one of the many Wallace "stompers". What were the criteria for inclusion? what data was excluded? Why? Were more than one print used from each trackway? how much publicity has there been in this country about the size of Bigfeet? What were the size of the Patterson footprints? have faked footprints ever been identified? have these footprints fooled Bigfoot experts?

Those would be just be the first questions asked if this data was ever presented to actual scientists. You can't answer them. And if you could answer them, the answers would invoke snickers and rolling eyes, poking elbows, etc.

Debunked? What debunked means to you is "Will my prophets (Meldrum, Moneymaker, Munns, and Gimlin) admit it's wrong?" or "will it no longer appear on MonsterQuest?"

If you by chance mean "would it be rejected by scientists for reasons of tomfoolery," then absolutely it would be ripped to shreds just by the data issues alone, and it would never get any further. You need a dose of reality. That curve is a joke. It is so far from being scientifically meaningful that it needs it own zip code.

Yes, he had an encounter of sorts but never saw the subject. He heard it outside of his tent and then found what he thought were big footprints. This was long ago, maybe in his teens or twenties?

Is it that anyone with such an experience can never ever switch to non-belief? Has anyone ever first said "I saw a Bigfoot" or "I was in the presence of a Bigfoot" and then later (for whatever reasons) came to say "I don't think that Bigfoot exists" or "Bigfoot doesn't exist"?

The phenomenon is known as a "religious experience." The younger, the more "meaningful." Moneymaker and his ilk try to create these experiences on their "expeditions." "Hear that? must be a Bigfoot." etc. Cults are pretty much all the same.

People who camped as kids generally know all the tricks that can be played on campers. I guess not enough kids went through that.

I'd bet all my Bert's Bigfoot Suit Rental™ late charges and my 420 Bazooka Joe™ comics that Dr. Meldrum just wishes Bigfoot and anything and everything to do with 'it' would just go the **** away.

Disagree; Meldrum makes a lot of money off Bigfoot, probably more than anyone else in the world aside from Mrs. Patterson, the Dahindens, and Matt M. And he will continue to for years into the future. I will bet you my Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science DVD overdue charges and my MonsterQuest propeller beanie he will write another book featuring Sasquatch.

I saw that also. The Bigfoot creduloid had catalogued and collected casts of 6", 8" and 11" footprints. He said the ones couldn't possibly have been human because they were barefoot and it was cool outside. Does Jeff Meldrun never get embarrassed by any of these peoples' actions?

If that tracker hadn't been there, Meldrum would have proclaimed that Bigfoot can operate boats.

Yes, but it didn't turn up any surprises. All of the documents were filed by René Dahinden. The file copy of the film is a real beauty with rich, vivid color. It was in a generic container with no markings on the film itself. What stood out most was that I'm used to seeing the PGF heavily cropped. Patty is just a tiny, blurry thing in the full frame.

wow, get a microscope on that puppy!!! I'd love to know where the splices are.

Gee, you know, I think I can.
can you tell me sources of the data? how many toes each foot had? how many had the split ball? how many had narrow heels? how many others had differences? all collected by one person? or how many were "collected" by Freeman? Marx? Patterson? Titmus? on Bluff Creek? Blue Mountain? How many closely resemble one of the many Wallace "stompers". What were the criteria for inclusion? what data was excluded? Why? Were more than one print used from each trackway? how much publicity has there been in this country about the size of Bigfeet? What were the size of the Patterson footprints? have faked footprints ever been identified? have these footprints fooled Bigfoot experts?

I wandered down the Fahrenbach bell curve path awhile ago myself over on the BFF. I asked how he determined which were real tracks, and which were fake, and what original data he used.

The 57 track sizes I plotted (as reported in John Green's The Sasquatch File) produced a bar/line graph that looks like this:

Not quite the symmetrical bell curve that some so fiercely defend.

Quote:

Those would be just be the first questions asked if this data was ever presented to actual scientists.

They would need the original data he used for analysis purposes too. Kind of hard to replicate his findings if he doesn't provide a source for his numbers.

I wandered down the Fahrenbach bell curve path awhile ago myself over on the BFF. I asked how he determined which were real tracks, and which were fake, and what original data he used.

I seem to remember this discussion, Of course I have to log-in to BFF as one of my 27 Socks in order to revisit the discussion, so I'll have to go by memory.

I believe my main point was that there was no criteria to say how they determined whether to 'keep' or 'discard' a footprint in the data set.

Were they throwing out small footprints because they 'must be human', thus making the curve shift to the right?

What if it was just a 17" long depression in the ground, how did they determine that they should include that in the data set?

etc...

PS: Speaking of my 27 socks at BFF, I would like anyone who has the ability to search old posts, to click on JimF's old posts from 2004 or so. Dude was finding BIGFOOT left and right.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic